User talk:Eggventura
Welcome to my talk page! Eggventura (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulucami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
--Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
October 2022
[edit]i hit the wrong button sorry lol LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 03:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- haha no worries Eggventura (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chen Halevi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Deprodding of Feudal barony of Cromar
[edit]Hello Eggventura -- Please don't revert deprodding edits as vandalism -- they are not. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what part WikiLoop DoubleCheck plays in this but your revert of my edit to Guildford was also way off the mark. Is this some sort of bot malfunction? --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal@Espresso Addict Hi guys sorry if these edits have seemed belligerent I'm not sure how to change the Wikiloop message and didn't meant to accuse of "vandalism"-- as to Espresso addict I didn't see the value in removing the deletion nomination so undid it (please advise), and as to you Daniel I went and checked the ISBN and it does seem to say "pictorial" in the book title so was very confused by your edit and reverted. Eggventura (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are right about the Guildford source. I should have enlarged the image and checked more carefully. Anyway, if you can find a way to change the edit summaries then that would be good. DanielRigal (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Haha no worries-- had a laugh when I was going through on the ISBN search and it said "pictorial" everywhere, thought I was going crazy. Also have realized how to edit Wikiloop message. Have you re(!) reverted the edit or should I? Eggventura (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are right about the Guildford source. I should have enlarged the image and checked more carefully. Anyway, if you can find a way to change the edit summaries then that would be good. DanielRigal (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @DanielRigal@Espresso Addict Hi guys sorry if these edits have seemed belligerent I'm not sure how to change the Wikiloop message and didn't meant to accuse of "vandalism"-- as to Espresso addict I didn't see the value in removing the deletion nomination so undid it (please advise), and as to you Daniel I went and checked the ISBN and it does seem to say "pictorial" in the book title so was very confused by your edit and reverted. Eggventura (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Proposed deletion. Any editor may contest any proposed deletion for any reason or none. This cannot be undone, and if the proposer (or anyone else) still wishes to delete the article then it must be discussed at AfD. Also, I'm an administrator; considering proposed deletions is part of the job description. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- PS Sorry about being rather curt above. I can't remember when anyone last accused me of vandalism! I'd be very careful using that tool; looking at the Mediawiki documentation page for it there appears to be quite a high rate of reported errors and it pays no heed to the experience of the editor (unlike most of the vandalism tools). Also, on the wikipolitics front, removing or declining prod tags is a game that is mainly played by highly experienced editors, and inadvertently accusing them of vandalism is likely to cause offence. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi no worrries about being curt I deserved it a bit! Apologies again on the accidental vandalism accusation, to be fully honest with you I forgot that's included in the Wikiloop message and meant no offense by it. This was really an example of my lack of experience showing-- prior to this moment I hadn't fully realized the difference between Proposed Deletion and an AfD and thought it was a situation with some editor trying to circumvent a AfD discussion, I realize my mistake now. Will tread more lightly in the future!! Eggventura (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, that makes sense! There's an enormous difference between speedies, prods and AfDs, and a lot of complicated rules about when and by whom they can be removed. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Espresso Addict.
- I notice you deprodded my deletion.
- First, as a genuine question. When deprodding a deletion, are you not expected to explain why you have deprodded it? Excuse my asking such a naive question, it is for my understanding. As it is you seem to have only asked that the thing/s mentioned as being lacking by the deletion request are addressed. Perhaps it is normal to deprod on that basis - but it doesn't seem to progress things too much. The article itself has already asked for that for quite some time.
- To try to explain the rationale for deletion.
- The article states that a Feudal barony of Cromar existed attached to Migvie Castle. But, during the time of Migvie Castle's existence and since the area and authority was never referred to as a barony or its holders as barons in historical documents. The Earls of Mar held it as a Lordship, but were never referred to as Barons. The cited book in the bibliography makes no mention of such a thing either, although it is entirely focused on the area of Cromar.
- This PHD Thesis explores the administrative structures of the area in detail during that period. It refers to a number of Baronies and a number of Lordships. It lists Cromar as a Lordship and provides its historical evidence in charters in that light.
- https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/25815/1/PHD%20THESIS%20FINAL%202017.pdf
- This wikipedia page is being propagated autoatically and manually across the internet and no doubt is being included in people's thinking and research. The risk is the historical significance and nature of this ancient authority and dignity and the area itself becomes lost or confused.
- If someone has used the "technical" definition to say that lordships can be looked on as baronies, and so substantiates it as a commercial commodity and thing to be owned and enjoyed in recent years, that seems reasonable given the law clearly allows it. But if so I would suggest that ought to be done with an explanation as to that rationale and what it represents truly rather than implying it has had genuine historical usage.
- Historical information and subtleties of ancient tenure are complex enough without overwriting history. It will be a great shame if history is obscured.
- I hope this makes sense, and appreciate your taking time to consider it. If I have added it in the wrong place, or it is couched in the wrong terms I would welcome your advice as to how to improve it.
- I am also happy to lsiten to counter arguments if any are posed.
- Thanks
- Aardnavaxin Aardnavarkin (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, that makes sense! There's an enormous difference between speedies, prods and AfDs, and a lot of complicated rules about when and by whom they can be removed. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi no worrries about being curt I deserved it a bit! Apologies again on the accidental vandalism accusation, to be fully honest with you I forgot that's included in the Wikiloop message and meant no offense by it. This was really an example of my lack of experience showing-- prior to this moment I hadn't fully realized the difference between Proposed Deletion and an AfD and thought it was a situation with some editor trying to circumvent a AfD discussion, I realize my mistake now. Will tread more lightly in the future!! Eggventura (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- PS Sorry about being rather curt above. I can't remember when anyone last accused me of vandalism! I'd be very careful using that tool; looking at the Mediawiki documentation page for it there appears to be quite a high rate of reported errors and it pays no heed to the experience of the editor (unlike most of the vandalism tools). Also, on the wikipolitics front, removing or declining prod tags is a game that is mainly played by highly experienced editors, and inadvertently accusing them of vandalism is likely to cause offence. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi I left an explanation/discussion on the talk page for the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, would be interested in hearing your input. Apologies for forgetting an edit summary, I appreciate the reminder Eggventura (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)